If you avoid the feminist section then at least read this article

[RedthroatedCaracara]

because all females need to be aware of this

And there's no need to have an attack of the vapours because it's a Daily Mail link. For all their multitude of shortcomings, the Mail at least have the guts to publish articles that stand up for women and girls.

I’ve highlighted evidence that ‘mother’ is still being used everywhere

You've posted a few screenshots where the word "mother" is used once. So no, it is not evidence of this. People have posted evidence of female erasure and you have minimised, dismissed or like you just did with Datun's post, handwaved it away with "that has already been discussed". The point is that there was a concerted effort to use "gender neutral" language in the maternity bill, which was partially defeated. It still doesn't use the word "woman". So forgive me for not wanting to waste my time engaging with disingenuous nonsense.

I've seen so much erasure of women from female bodily processes and experiences on social media that I wouldn't know where to begin.

Why do you think JK Rowling copped so much abuse for making a sarcastic tweet about it?

The words "mother", "maternity" and "pregnant woman" have been completely erased from all HR documentation in my university. I believe this is standard practice in the sector.

Pumperthepumper

Stonewall is one organisation of quite a few, who are trying to de-gender every day terms.

According to their PR, they are responsible for something like 20% of this country's organisation's LGBT policy.

From the government, to schools, to universities, to the DVLA.

They will all have been drip fed this information from Stonewall.

How many people do you think would have to be already complicit, willingly or unaware, in order to stop a bill at the 11th hour in the house of lords?

Meetings, minute takers, secretaries, cabinet ministers, committees, MPs. All waving it through.

That's one amendment, to one bill, at one point in time, in one organisation.

Scale that up in your head.

Just because the man in your local cornershop doesn't refer to his mother as his birthing parent, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Targeting the word mother, was probably a mistake. You might be able to do it in policy, but as soon as people get wind of it, there will be pushback. People are emotionally tied to it in a way that was always going to meet hard resistance.

But that was their mistake, not ours.

They're succeeding with things like announcements on the underground, and headteachers deciding to say good morning everyone, instead of boys pr girls. It's happening.

Remind me what a sea lion is, I forget

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I’ve highlighted evidence that ‘mother’ is still being used everywhere

You've posted a few screenshots where the word "mother" is used once. So no, it is not evidence of this. People have posted evidence of female erasure and you have minimised, dismissed or like you just did with Datun's post, handwaved it away with "that has already been discussed". The point is that there was a concerted effort to use "gender neutral" language in the maternity bill, which was partially defeated. It still doesn't use the word "woman". So forgive me for not wanting to waste my time engaging with disingenuous nonsense.

It’s still infinitely more evidence than you’ve provided that it’s ‘widespread’.

It has already been discussed - I’ll happily discuss it again but I don’t have anything new to say from a few pages ago.

Stonewall is one organisation of quite a few, who are trying to de-gender every day terms.

According to their PR, they are responsible for something like 20% of this country's organisation's LGBT policy.

From the government, to schools, to universities, to the DVLA.

They will all have been drip fed this information from Stonewall.

How many people do you think would have to be already complicit, willingly or unaware, in order to stop a bill at the 11th hour in the House of Lords?

Meetings, minute takers, secretaries, cabinet ministers, committees, MPs. All waving it through.

That's one amendment, to one bill, at one point in time, in one organisation.

Scale that up in your head.

Quite.

#Pumper

This isn’t just about the use of the word ‘mother’, that’s just the one example the press have latched onto in the past few days. If you look at the FWR posts, there are so many posts on how SW’s lobbying is impacting women, and children eg:

Six formers sending a school newsletter to all girls in their school with info and links on binding as well as links to adult only websites. The parents did not receive a copy of the newsletter, nor told of its existence.

Mark’s & Spencers amending its policy to allow men into the bra fitting area.

A post by a mother whose friends daughter had ordered a binding for her daughter without mentioning it to the parent.

A poster whose primary school child is being socially transitioned at school, despite the poster saying that she does not consent to this.

@Hazycoffee

#Pumper

This isn’t just about the use of the word ‘mother’, that’s just the one example the press have latched onto in the past few days. If you look at the FWR posts, there are so many posts on how SW’s lobbying is impacting women, and children eg:

Six formers sending a school newsletter to all girls in their school with info and links on binding as well as links to adult only websites. The parents did not receive a copy of the newsletter, nor told of its existence.

Mark’s & Spencers amending its policy to allow men into the bra fitting area.

A post by a mother whose friends daughter had ordered a binding for her daughter without mentioning it to the parent.

A poster whose primary school child is being socially transitioned at school, despite the poster saying that she does not consent to this.

Exactly.

Sarah Vine is there to sell papers and generate outrage. However, the information she based article on is completely genuine.

@Datun

Pumperthepumper

Stonewall is one organisation of quite a few, who are trying to de-gender every day terms.

According to their PR, they are responsible for something like 20% of this country's organisation's LGBT policy.

From the government, to schools, to universities, to the DVLA.

They will all have been drip fed this information from Stonewall.

How many people do you think would have to be already complicit, willingly or unaware, in order to stop a bill at the 11th hour in the house of lords?

Meetings, minute takers, secretaries, cabinet ministers, committees, MPs. All waving it through.

That's one amendment, to one bill, at one point in time, in one organisation.

Scale that up in your head.

Just because the man in your local cornershop doesn't refer to his mother as his birthing parent, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Targeting the word mother, was probably a mistake. You might be able to do it in policy, but as soon as people get wind of it, there will be pushback. People are emotionally tied to it in a way that was always going to meet hard resistance.

But that was their mistake, not ours.

They're succeeding with things like announcements on the underground, and headteachers deciding to say good morning everyone, instead of boys pr girls. It's happening.

Stonewall absolutely have an agenda, I’m not disagreeing with that.

I’m disagreeing with how successful they are. So far in terms of evidence of this widespread issue, we’ve one welsh hr policy document and the LLL USA specifically. That’s it.

@Hazycoffee

#Pumper

This isn’t just about the use of the word ‘mother’, that’s just the one example the press have latched onto in the past few days. If you look at the FWR posts, there are so many posts on how SW’s lobbying is impacting women, and children eg:

Six formers sending a school newsletter to all girls in their school with info and links on binding as well as links to adult only websites. The parents did not receive a copy of the newsletter, nor told of its existence.

Mark’s & Spencers amending its policy to allow men into the bra fitting area.

A post by a mother whose friends daughter had ordered a binding for her daughter without mentioning it to the parent.

A poster whose primary school child is being socially transitioned at school, despite the poster saying that she does not consent to this.

Absolutely none of that is to do with Sarah Vine’s article on ‘mother’ being erased. I’ll say again, I’m gender critical, I don’t support trans ideology- but I also don’t think that hyperbole around these issues helps.

I’m disagreeing with how successful they are.

Any and all lack of success has happened purely because of the women like those on this thread.

@Datun

Pumperthepumper

Stonewall is one organisation of quite a few, who are trying to de-gender every day terms.

According to their PR, they are responsible for something like 20% of this country's organisation's LGBT policy.

From the government, to schools, to universities, to the DVLA.

They will all have been drip fed this information from Stonewall.

How many people do you think would have to be already complicit, willingly or unaware, in order to stop a bill at the 11th hour in the house of lords?

Meetings, minute takers, secretaries, cabinet ministers, committees, MPs. All waving it through.

That's one amendment, to one bill, at one point in time, in one organisation.

Scale that up in your head.

Just because the man in your local cornershop doesn't refer to his mother as his birthing parent, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Targeting the word mother, was probably a mistake. You might be able to do it in policy, but as soon as people get wind of it, there will be pushback. People are emotionally tied to it in a way that was always going to meet hard resistance.

But that was their mistake, not ours.

They're succeeding with things like announcements on the underground, and headteachers deciding to say good morning everyone, instead of boys pr girls. It's happening.

Good post

Not to mention the creep into marketing copy for products targeted at women. If it’s mainstream enough for huge companies such as P&G it’s worth discussing, and changing.

And I'm not being funny Pumper, but your lack of logic is odd.

You say you disagree with the ideology, and you understand that Stonewall has an agenda.

Then you put forward an argument, (I'm not quite sure what), about the lack of success they're having, at the same time as criticising women for highlighting their agenda - which they are doing in order to curtail any success.

You appear to be using the fact that feminist campaigns are working, to argue for them to not exist!

You don't want women to raise consciousness on AIBU, because Stonewall's success is being limited due to those women who are raising consciousness.

@Datun

And I'm not being funny Pumper, but your lack of logic is odd.

You say you disagree with the ideology, and you understand that Stonewall has an agenda.

Then you put forward an argument, (I'm not quite sure what), about the lack of success they're having, at the same time as criticising women for highlighting their agenda - which they are doing in order to curtail any success.

You appear to be using the fact that feminist campaigns are working, to argue for them to not exist!

You don't want women to raise consciousness on AIBU, because Stonewall's success is being limited due to those women who are raising consciousness.

That’s not funny, no.

I’ve just deleted a very similar post to this one actually, I’ve deleted it because it seemed a bit rude and I’m not sure if I can face going down this road - but to me, your logic is also odd.

You seem to base quite a lot of your evidence about this widespread issue on what could happen or what might have happened, that evidence is generally one tweet or an old Instagram post. But any rebuttal of that is met with ‘well, that’s because we’ve already fixed it’.

Yet Sarah Vine is claiming its a massive issue. And people are agreeing. So which is it? Are you winning or do people just not care enough?

• I should have been clearer - ‘do people just not care enough about trans inclusivity that changing words is a step too far?’

Does the erasure of the word mother have to happen absolutely everywhere before you'll believe it is a problem?

When SANDS put out a tweet about the birthing parent, why do you think that happened? Do you think they just randomly came up with it or maybe it was suggested by something like Stonewall? Do you not think it's offensive to women that never got to give birth or gave birth to a dead child and would never get to be called mother?

When black mothers are called black birthing bodies, where do you think the idea to say all that instead of just 'mother' came from?

Do you think it's a coincidence that this is happening all over the place? No, it's not happening everywhere yet, but how much does it have to happen before you think, wait a minute?

And it's not even just 'mother', it's just another branch that includes menstruators, cervix-havers, etc. De-humanising women and we're expected to be nice about it and go along without making a fuss.

And tell me something else, why is this not happening to men in the same way? Where are all the social media posts about ejaculators? Sanitary towel/tampon companies call us menstruators and bleeders, why don't condom companies call the men ejaculators?

You seem to base quite a lot of your evidence about this widespread issue on what could happen or what might have happened, that evidence is generally one tweet or an old Instagram post. But any rebuttal of that is met with ‘well, that’s because we’ve already fixed it’.

Why do you think these many social media posts, sometimes rolled back on after public scorn and pressure, were made in the first place? Why does women having to shout at organisations to recognise basic biological reality mean to you that there isn't any problem?

@justsaymaybe

Does the erasure of the word mother have to happen absolutely everywhere before you'll believe it is a problem?

When SANDS put out a tweet about the birthing parent, why do you think that happened? Do you think they just randomly came up with it or maybe it was suggested by something like Stonewall? Do you not think it's offensive to women that never got to give birth or gave birth to a dead child and would never get to be called mother?

When black mothers are called black birthing bodies, where do you think the idea to say all that instead of just 'mother' came from?

Do you think it's a coincidence that this is happening all over the place? No, it's not happening everywhere yet, but how much does it have to happen before you think, wait a minute?

And it's not even just 'mother', it's just another branch that includes menstruators, cervix-havers, etc. De-humanising women and we're expected to be nice about it and go along without making a fuss.

And tell me something else, why is this not happening to men in the same way? Where are all the social media posts about ejaculators? Sanitary towel/tampon companies call us menstruators and bleeders, why don't condom companies call the men ejaculators?

I don’t think it’s fair to say ‘everywhere’ but certainly more places than the odd tweet and the Welsh HR policy document. Similarly, how few places does it have to be before you decide it isn't a problem? Zero?

X post with justsaymaybe's post which put it better than I did.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

You seem to base quite a lot of your evidence about this widespread issue on what could happen or what might have happened, that evidence is generally one tweet or an old Instagram post. But any rebuttal of that is met with ‘well, that’s because we’ve already fixed it’.

Why do you think these many social media posts, sometimes rolled back on after public scorn and pressure, were made in the first place? Why does women having to shout at organisations to recognise basic biological reality mean to you that there isn't any problem?

Because it’s not translating into real life. Even those handful of tweets saying ‘birthing parent’ link to policies, websites and press releases where ‘mother’ is used everywhere.

I don’t think it’s fair to say ‘everywhere’ but certainly more places than the odd tweet and the Welsh HR policy document. Similarly, how few places does it have to be before you decide it isn't a problem? Zero?

Perhaps you should answer the question you were asked? It's you who is implying that it isn't enough for your personal standards, so why not share them?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I don’t think it’s fair to say ‘everywhere’ but certainly more places than the odd tweet and the Welsh HR policy document. Similarly, how few places does it have to be before you decide it isn't a problem? Zero?

Perhaps you should answer the question you were asked? It's you who is implying that it isn't enough for your personal standards, so why not share them?

Which question didn’t I answer?

Because it’s not translating into real life. Even those handful of tweets saying ‘birthing parent’ link to policies, websites and press releases where ‘mother’ is used everywhere.

It is translating into real life. Tell me, why do you identify as "gender critical"? If it's all just a storm in a teacup, what's the problem?